Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/02/2000 RMarch 2, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 2, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abernathy Karen Urbanik Sam M. Saadeh Michael Pedone Gary Wrage Michael J. Bruet Joyceanna A. Rautio ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Pa~e 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDWIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE GCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUN'I~ STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUN'I~ COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-99-28, Richard and Leslie Lilien requesting a 5.5-foot variance from the required 7.5-foot side yard setback to 2 feet for property located at 10262 Vanderbilt Drive, further described as Lot 26, Block 40, Naples Park Unit 6, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 2:5 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) R-99-12, Lisa H. Bamette of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson. LLP. representing Benedict P. Miralia, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "C-4" for property located on the west side of U.S. 41 North approximately 1500 feet south of the Wiggins Pass Road intersection, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.53:t: acres. (Continued from 2/17) (Coordinator: Susan Murray) CU-O0-02, Diane Flagg, Chief, Collier County EMS, and Sandra Taylor, Collier County Real Property, requesting a conditional use for Essential Services in the "E" Estates zoning district per Section 2.6.9.2 for an EMS and SheriWs Office Substation for property located at the southwest comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and 13th Street S.W., in Section 8, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.57:!: acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reisehl) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 3/2/00 AGEND/RN/im 2 March 2, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'll call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order, and we will start with our roll call. Commissioner Priddy is absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Urbanik? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Budd is here. Commissioner Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Saadeh is absent. Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any addenda to the agenda? There are none. No minutes to approve. Any planned absences in our future? There are none. I've no Board of County Commissioner -- or, excuse me, no Chairman's Report. Board of County Commissioners' Report? Ron? MR. NINO: I think it might be interesting to note that the Board of County Commissioners, when they dealt with the Naples Golden Gate -- Golden Gate Commerce Park, which used to be the Health Park over there on the northwest corner quadrant of 951 and the freeway, for all practical purposes they denied it, but it ended up they continued it, and one would have to assume that the board is -- took the position that highways are -- highways are not functioning adequately even though -- even though -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just certified. MR. NINO: -- even though, according to our traffic circulation element, the correct -- they're -- they're not operating below level Pa~e 2 March 2, 2000 of services. (Commissioner Sam M. Saadeh entered the board room.) MR. NINO: And I hate to use the word, but it might -- it might appear that the -- that the board is taking a more cautious view in terms of approving the petitions where the roads aren't functioning, when the world knows they're not operating but our plan says they are, but I just want to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, Ron. We will move into our advertised public hearings. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Budd? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: For the record, we might want to acknowledge that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh is here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- Mr. Saadeh is here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Why? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: To keep the record straight. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. And the record is correct now. Open with Petition V-99-28. Do we have any disclosures on this item? All those wishing to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Is the petitioner here? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have no idea. MR. LILIEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you intend to present testimony, you need to be sworn in. If you'd stand and raise your right hand? (The witnesses were duly sworn by the court reporter.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for a variance from seven and a half feet to two feet for the side yard of a homeowner construction in Naples Park. You can see the location. It fronts on Vanderbilt Drive, one lot down from the intersection with 103rd. The variances on the north side, the requested variances on Pa~e 3 March 2, 2000 the north side, you can see the yellow area, would be the proposed encroachment. The pink is the house that's under construction. This is the pool that's already there. And the reason for the variance is because of some large ficus trees on the neighboring property to the south. If you take a look at the photos, you can see the petitioner's house on the -- on the left, the neighbor to the south's fence and you can see the large -- I thought Banyan, of course, but I think it's some kind of ficus tree, shading the south side of the property. This is the view of the north property line and, once again, you can see the petitioner's house on the right side of the photo, the home to the east, but this area here would be the area of the proposed encroachment, and you can see the lawn area of the neighbor to the north. And I think it even -- a better shot, this is taken from 103rd looking south. This is the petitioner's neighborhood to the north, this is the petitioner's house, and this is the area where the pool cage would be. As you see, what it abuts is the lawn of the backyard of the neighbor to the north. You also saw a letter of no objection from that neighbor, and this is, my guess would be the reason, because it's not abutting directly the house but an open lawn area. I did receive one phone call stating an objection because of a bad precedent, but nothing in particular against the actual location of the variance. Because there's no land-related hardship, staff is constrained from recommending approval, but as I pointed out, there is no direct encroachment next to another structure. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Does the petitioner wish to make any comments? MR. LILIEN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone from the public to address this item? We will close the public hearing. Page 4 March 2, 2000 Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we forward Petition V-99-28 to the BZA with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion by Mr. Pedone. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Jim. CHAIRMAN BUDD: A motion and a second. Any discussions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. I guess my feelings about side-yard variances are already well known. This petition strikes me as verging on silly if we're going to have side-yard setbacks at all. As we speak, the sun is moving from the east to the west, and at midday it's at the south, which is where this tree is, and during the summer months at least, it's almost directly overhead where a tree would cast no shadow other than just beneath itself. So, to start allowing variances just on almost whimsical terms strikes me as the wrong way to go. I know the county commission loves to do this but they're politicians and if they want to give out candy, that's their prerogative. I think we should pay some attention to the code. If we don't -- if we want to grant every variance, we ought to do away with the procedure. This one, if there's ever one that didn't deserve it, strikes me as having no merit whatsoever and I intend to vote against it. COMMISSIONERS BRUET.' Mr. Chairman, I also, you know, agree. I think when an individual buys a 50-foot lot, he knows going in that there are certain constraints. And seven and a half foot setbacks are standard for this type of zoning. His plan calls for a 28-foot pool. 24-foot pools are very common, and I would think with some proper planning he could fit a pool in there that would be adequate in size and also escape the issue of excessive shade. I'm not going to support the petition. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have to agree. I'm not one that's big on variances that are not indicated a hardship. I feel that -- Page 5 March 2, 2000 with Mr. Abernathy that we're stepping way over the line if we apProve this variance for a side yard, so I cannot support the motion. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I can't support the motion either. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: One final one. It -- it -- I don't see the hardship here. Again, this is a new house. I guess prior planning, we have poor performance. I won't support the motion either. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I changed my vote on that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think you were opposed, Mr. Wrage. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I was thinking about something else. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So, the motion fails. The petition is not approved. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Does she know the numbers? What is it; two in favor? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Two in favor. MR. LILIEN: Any chance to speak up on this thing or is it too late? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, it's too late, sir. The next item, R-99-12. Are there any disclosures relative to this item? All those in the public that wish to address the board, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 6 March 2, 2000 (The witnesses were duly sworn by the court reporter.) MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray from Planning Services. The subject property is three and a half acres in size. It's located south of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass Road. It is located within the currently adopted, but not yet legally effective, activity center boundaries surrounding that intersection. You can see the activity center boundaries on the visualizer here. This is pretty straightforward. It's a request to rezone from Rural Agricultural to C-4. I did want to point out a couple of issues that you need to be aware of. First of all, this property is located within an area of historic and archaeological probability, and as such, the petitioner is required to submit a historical and aerological survey and assessment or request a waiver. It's my understanding that the petitioner has requested a waiver but the status of that waiver is -- is not yet known; therefore, I've included an additional stipulation and staff's recommendations that I'd like to read them into the record later. Additionally, the site is located within an eagle protection zone. Unfortunately, when these sites come in without master plans like a PUD would, it's -- they do not end up going to the -- before the EAC until the site plan phase when we actually have a site plan so we can see what is proposed for development on the site. So, there is a stipulation and staff's recommendations that say this petition will go before the EAC at the SDP phase of the project. So, I just wanted to make you aware of that. Other than that, staff does feel the -- a rezoning to C-4 is compatible with surrounding uses. It is consistent with the Growth Management Plan in that it's located within the activity center, and we are recommending approval with the stipulations in your packet, and I'd like to just read into the record the final stipulation. Page 7 March 2, 2000 Unless a waiver is granted exempting the petitioner from the requirement for an archaeological and historical assessment and survey, the petitioner shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations presented in the archaeological and historical assessment and survey. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MS. MURRAY: I'm finished if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO.' Just how close is the eagle's nest to this property? MS. MURRAY: I checked with Steve Lenberger, (phonetic) our environmental specialist, and he's not really sure in that the -- it's -- the eagle has been known to travel to several trees within that area. It's my understanding that it's located within, I believe, the secondary zone of the nesting area. I'm not sure if you're real familiar with that, but the primary zone extends a certain -- extends out from the last known nesting tree and then the secondary zone extends a further distance out from that and there's differing regulations with regard to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Florida -- Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. There are different guidelines that they would present depending on what zone that property was in. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, you really don't know. MS. MURRAY: I really don't know until -- correct, until the time that an assessment is conducted. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Because I have personal familiarity with this Eagle Boy Scout Camp, and it's back there, and Germain, having been a contractor and it can be a rather fascinating experience. MS. MURRAY: Oh, absolutely, yeah. And when they do their ElS, hopefully they'll be able to pinpoint the last known location of the eagle at that point and then I believe that's where the regulations would take place, depending on where that eagle is located. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And he might have moved to Collier Reserve by then. Page 8 March 2, 2000 MS. MURRAY: It could have. Exactly. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any other questions for staff? Does the petitioner wish to address the board? Please state your name for the record. MS. BARNETT: I'm Lisa Barnett from Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson. I don't have anything specific with regard to the eagle. It is in the back third of our property and I do believe we're in the secondary zone like Miss Murray said. And, again, when we go in for a site plan, then that would be addressed at that time since we don't have any specific site plan at this time. Other than that, unless there are any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? Thank you. Any members from the public wish to address the board? MR. THORNTON: I'd like to. Good morning. My name is Chris Thornton with Treiser, Kobza and Lieberfarb here in town. I'm here today on behalf of Germain Properties of Columbus and you may know the Germain family and Germain Auto dealership name. They happen to own the property and operates the automotive facility next door to the Miralia property to the north. It's on 41 north. I think -- I'm really here as a friendly objector today. We don't really have any objections to the development of this property, commercial or otherwise, as long as it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code; however, there is a fairness issue that I think should be at least looked at and I'd like to clarify it with staff and with you. The Germain property is about 13 acres and it was approved as a PUD back in 1990. When that was done, in effect, a 75-foot green space buffer was imposed on that Germain property. I think the Land Development Code requires 20 in activity centers and 20 in places where the right-of-way is as wide as it is on 41. But -- and I've reviewed the PUD file, I reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission, the Board of Commission hearing from 1990. I can't really find any good reason why any buffer in Page 9 March 2, 2000 excess of 20 feet was imposed. Truthfully, Germain's position is that there is no reason. We don't think there should be any buffer imposed on Miralia in excess of the minimum requirements. But at the same time, we don't feel that if -- if there's going to be a buffer in excess of the minimum requirements imposed on Germain or other properties on 41, then those shall also be imposed on Miralia. The C-4 zoning will allow auto dealerships. Germain is not trying to suppress competition but the closeness of your display area of an auto dealership to the highway is very important for marketing and sales purposes. And if this rezone goes through with no conditions, then they're -- they can put their display areas, if they decide to do an auto dealership, within 20 feet of the highway. Germain's would be 55 feet farther back. It just doesn't seem fair. Again, I don't think there's any reason for it, and it's really -- this is an issue that -- I hope to be before you soon. That is an issue that Germain has with the county and probably will be coming in here to try to address that at a later date. But if there is any reason that any buffering in excess of the minimum should be imposed on this property, I would like to hear about it and see if staff had -- knows of any good reasons why. I don't think there are any, Germain doesn't think there are any, and I think we really should have the minimum, but if there are reasons why that there should be excess buffering, then that should be imposed on other people just like they are on Germain. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Susan, are there any thoughts on that? My quick reaction is I wouldn't want to an impose an additional buffer on this property just because we did the same next door. If there's an appropriate reason, we should do it. If there's not an appropriate reason, then Germain needs to come back at some future date and amend their PUD. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. Our -- this petition went through the usual review process with the Public Works Engineering, Transportation, our own engineering folks for Page 10 March 2, 2000 stormwater, and nothing came back that indicated that there was a need for any excess setback or right-of-way or water management concerns, which would necessitate a -- a larger setback. The landscape buffer requirement in this area is 20 feet and they would be required to abide by that. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay. So that in barring any specific action by the board to the contrary, my recommendation would be that Germain come back, modify their PUD or request a modification of their PUD to a lesser buffer and maybe things will go different this year than they did in 1990. MR. THORNTON: I agree and I didn't want to get here today and shoot myself in the foot, and I think -- I mean, this is what I'd hoped to hear and I appreciate your taking the time to listen to me, CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address the board? There being none, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH.' Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve Petition R-99-12 based on staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' A motion by Commissioner Saadeh and second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. URBANIK: Aye. PEDONE: Aye. WRAGE: Aye. BRUET: Aye. SAADEH: Aye. Aye. Page 11 March 2, 2000 Agenda Item CU-2000-02. Do we have any disclosures on this item? There are none. All those that wish to address the board, please stand, raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The witnesses were duly sworn by the court reporter.) MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a conditional use for an EMS and Sheriff Substation in Golden Gate Estates. You can see on the visualizer Golden Gate Boulevard and the intersection with 13th Street. This is the location of the library and fire station, which have provisional uses, the former name for a conditional use. The gray is the site. As you know, in the Golden Gate area master plan, conditional uses are limited to certain areas. Except for safety services conditional uses, safety services conditional uses can go anywhere in Golden Gate Estates, and staff feels it's an appropriate location next to other county services. We've received no letters or phone calls of objection. Staff recommends approval.~ The only note I wanted to note for the record is that if this is approved, that the properties to the west and to the south become eligible for transitional conditional uses. Staff doesn't feel that's a reason for any concern but just for the record so you're aware of that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I was curious as to why the access is limited to 13th Street and not Golden Gate Boulevard. Do you know the reason for that? MR. REISCHL: 13th Street is going to be signalized upon the four laning and our transportation director felt that a decel lane with an access onto 13th would be the most appropriate method of access. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: two lane and is about to be four? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Golden Gate Boulevard now is Is that right? Pa~e 12 March 2, 2000 MR. REISCHL: And with four laning, there will be a decel lane and a traffic lane. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And yet once on the site, it looks like people will have to drive past the EMS to get to the Sheriff, which is in the back? Is that the way that's going to work? MR. REISCHL: It's one facility. The reason for the two -- the double driveway -- is that your question -- is the access for the -- easier access for ambulances. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the front of the site. There's a loop through -- through the building, I suppose, but I'm talking about if you come in on the side closest to Golden Gate Boulevard, you have to drive through the parking area for EMS to get back to the Sheriff, which is in the back of the lot. Is that right? MR. REISCHL: On the west side of the lot, correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. West side. It's back as far as this -- where the access, where it's facing. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But there's no other egress, ingress other than that one. MS. FLAGG: Let me clarify for you. Chief Diane Flagg with Emergency Services. The reason that there's two driveways is that the apparatus come in one driveway, the driveway farthest from Golden Gate Boulevard and go into the apparatus bay. The first driveway is for the public, the Sheriff's office, and that parking lot is for the public and for the Sheriff's Office. That second drive, the drive farthest south of Golden Gate Boulevard, will be restricted to EMS apparatus as a drive through. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But you've got ten parking spaces there. MS. FLAGG: That's for staff. That will be for the paramedic and paramedic fire fighters to park back there, their private cars. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And that will all be made clear to the public out on the street? Page 13 March 2, 2000 MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. The -- the first drive will be the entrance for the public and for the Sheriff's Office. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And the other will say staff only or something like that? MS. FLAGG: Correct. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question of Diane. You may remember on Marco, there was some confusion or people were upset about the sirens in the residential area. Is there anything we can add to our recommendation that would help so that -- right now the land surrounding your facility is unoccupied but for future just so we can avoid some of that, is there anything you can recommend -- MS. FLAGG: Yes. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: -- that you remember from that? MS. FLAGG: We actually have recommended and are going to put in what's called a preemption device at the intersection of 13th and Golden Gate Boulevard. What it will be is it will preempt the light so that the paramedic or the paramedic fire fighters can hit the button and the light will change so that they can access Golden Gate Boulevard without having to blast their sirens initially. It will be available to not only the Sheriff's Office but as you -- you can't really see on this drawing, but a little bit further south down 13th is also Golden Gate Fire District and they also will have access to that preemption. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Okay. Thank you. MS. FLAGG: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are you all sharing space with the fire department now or are you located somewhere else? MS. FLAGG: The fire department is actually a little bit further south on 13th Street on the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I mean, is EMS in there with -- in part of that space? MS. FLAGG: No. We initially approached the fire district and they indicated that they were going to* expand and their property Page 14 March 2, 2000 would not allow an additional expansion. So, we went ahead and worked with the Sheriff to build this facility at that access point. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else you want to add, Diane, because we move right on into the petitioner's presentation. Any other comments? Any other questions for staff or the petitioner? Being none, is there anyone from the public to address this item? We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER SAADEH: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: CU-2000-02 to the Board of Zoning Appeals and include the preemption suggestion if that's within our jurisdiction to do that. I recommend-- I recommend-- Go ahead. I recommend we forward Petition COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. URBANIK: Aye. PEDONE: Aye. WRAGE: Aye. BRUET.' Aye. SAADEH.' Aye. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? Motion carries. Moving on our agenda, any old business? Any new business? Any public comment? We are adjourned. Page 15 March 2, 2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:58 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL BUDD, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE M. WITT, RPR Page 16